In Response to Re: DYM's : Do you just dream this stuff up?! My first sentence said " Yes playing down the street will reduce the number of variables" Posted by jdsallstar
Lol it's poker and cards what variables do you think I was talking about that arent random?
Listen we get it, you're not very good at dym's and instead of blaming and addressing your own failings you'd prefer to blame the format, luck/variance, amount of study required etc. The fact remains many players including many many non pros beat dym's regularly and going by the straight line scope graphs it proves that long term knowledge and skill is the key determining factor affecting results.
Variance in mtt's is even higher and that format also is hugely influenced by a players shove/fold/call decisions whilst playing with a short stack.
Lol it's poker and cards what variables do you think I was talking about that arent random? Listen we get it, you're not very good at dym's and instead of blaming and addressing your own failings you'd prefer to blame the format, luck/variance, amount of study required etc. The fact remains many players including many many non pros beat dym's regularly and going by the straight line scope graphs it proves that long term knowledge and skill is the key determining factor affecting results. Variance in mtt's is even higher and that format also is hugely influenced by a players shove/fold/call decisions whilst playing with a short stack. Posted by jdsallstar
Lol it's poker and cards what variables do you think I was talking about that arent random? Listen we get it, you're not very good at dym's and instead of blaming and addressing your own failings you'd prefer to blame the format, luck/variance, amount of study required etc. The fact remains many players including many many non pros beat dym's regularly and going by the straight line scope graphs it proves that long term knowledge and skill is the key determining factor affecting results. Variance in mtt's is even higher and that format also is hugely influenced by a players shove/fold/call decisions whilst playing with a short stack. Posted by jdsallstar
Variance in mtt's is even higher and that format also is hugely influenced by a players shove/fold/call decisions whilst playing with a short stack. Posted by jdsallstar
There is far more time to avoid/reduce that element in an MTT, which I'm sure you know. In a turbo DYM that situation becomes forced far more rapidly and unavoidably. Just because many poker formats include this NL element, does not mean it is the same in each format. In addition, as you know, payouts can also be far different too in comparison to the flat low payouts in DYMs.
If people want to play DYMs then of course that's up to them. However, it doesn't make my points in any way wrong. For players playing for returns (and not just fun, e.g. the OP), if they want to pay high rake with low potential payouts, be pray to high variance while this is true, and have next to no chance of becoming one of those (very small sample) that show a profit in this specific game, that's their choice of course.
The suggestion earlier from evilpingu to reduce rake to 5% is the most sensible reply I've seen so far in defence of this game format - that would create more players who showed a profit, and make the game (partially) more viable for an average player.
(it might even improve turnover and actually make more money for Sky too!)
Good morning Swan. Whats your opinion on pasta, i am a potato man myself. and am quite partial to some egg fried rice. All the best. Rainman215. P.S HAS ANYONE MENTIONED THE PASTA YET. Posted by rainman215
The Dragon Fountain does a Special fried rice @2.20
Funnily rainy, your own 'deepstack' game would be exactly the sort of comparison with DYMs I prefer, though sadly often can't fit in. I'm sure that's also why many of the little 'fishies' that some of these guys love to consume end up sat at their (dinner) tables for their feasts! 8-))
Lol it's poker and cards what variables do you think I was talking about that arent random? Listen we get it, you're not very good at dym's and instead of blaming and addressing your own failings you'd prefer to blame the format, luck/variance, amount of study required etc. The fact remains many players including many many non pros beat dym's regularly and going by the straight line scope graphs it proves that long term knowledge and skill is the key determining factor affecting results. Variance in mtt's is even higher and that format also is hugely influenced by a players shove/fold/call decisions whilst playing with a short stack. Posted by jdsallstar
Watch out, surely TK will now be along for you to have to prove the exact stats for this - we're not allowed to post vague figures to support claims, some %s specifically for DYMs only....?
In Response to Re: DYM's : Watch out, surely TK will now be along for you to have to prove the exact stats for this - we're not allowed to post vague figures to support claims, some %s specifically for DYMs only....? TK? Posted by swanstu
I doubt Tikay will respond to you. He is an incredible diplomat but you would be quiet a test even for him
In Response to Re: DYM's : There is far more time to avoid/reduce that element in an MTT, which I'm sure you know. In a turbo DYM that situation becomes forced far more rapidly and unavoidably. Just because many poker formats include this NL element, does not mean it is the same in each format. In addition, as you know, payouts can also be far different too in comparison to the flat low payouts in DYMs. If people want to play DYMs then of course that's up to them. However, it doesn't make my points in any way wrong. For players playing for returns (and not just fun, e.g. the OP), if they want to pay high rake with low potential payouts, be pray to high variance while this is true, and have next to no chance of becoming one of those (very small sample) that show a profit in this specific game, that's their choice of course. Posted by swanstu
It is their choice.
I know this is something you can't comprehend but some players enjoy dyms and make money at them too. From a quick search I see that you're a poor player at dyms from an ok sample. It seems that you take from your own stats that they're very hard to beat. As with any poker format,if you're not very good and unwilling to learn then you will lose money. This really does apply to all variations and not just dyms.
I'm not very good at heads up games and haven't studied them. So, I choose not to play heads up. I'm not stupid though. Just because I don't do well at those games i don't class them as unbeatable and recognise that some players make very good money at them.
I don't start or troll threads continuously telling people that they're unbeatable.
Maybe you should try very hard and take on board that a lot of people don't seem to agree with you and because they don't agree with you, it doesn't make them wrong
In Response to Re: DYM's : I doubt Tikay will respond to you. He is an incredible diplomat but you would be quiet a test for him Posted by Jac35
TK told me off for using vague claims earlier - doesn't this claim fall under that same issue, or is it allowed to make vague claims about %s 'winning' players, but not losing ones? I know you prob know the % of 'fishies' out there playing Jac (sharky)
In Response to Re: DYM's : Watch out, surely TK will now be along for you to have to prove the exact stats for this - we're not allowed to post vague figures to support claims, some %s specifically for DYMs only....? TK? Posted by swanstu
I don't have a full scope subscription so can't break sng's down into it's various formats but from looking at your 6 seater sng finishing positions I made an educated guess that you don't do very well at these.
I chose not to share figures then and choose again not to share them now not because I can't but because I didnt think it was fair to share your stats on a public forum. It's crass and not my style.
In Response to Re: DYM's : TK told me off for using vague claims earlier - doesn't this claim fall under that same issue, or is it allowed to make vague claims about %s 'winning' players, but not losing ones? I know you prob know the % of 'fishies' out there playing Jac (sharky) Posted by swanstu
I did not, because you never made "a vague claim".
You specifically wrote 99%.
I asked you to explain how you arrived at 99%, because, in my view, it was a pure guess.
Had you have written "many" I would not have disputed it. You wrote an exact number -99%. That was fictitious, & wrong. "Many" would have been accurate.
That's my bit for today, I'm off to Wembley to watch the Miami Dolphins play the Pennsylvania Porpoises, or somesuch.
As I suspected it's ok to be imprecise then when claiming that significant numbers of players can win at this format/rake
TK you actually also told me off for using the phrase the 'vast majority' lose, if you look back - I'd still stand by that, but accepted it wasn't quite clear enough.
JDs claim that 'many' players win is pretty obviously vague and implies he has stats to support that view - ignoring the masses shown for this game that lose in the stats (on sharkscope).
mumsie, people who continually interject Off-topic in threads are 'trolls', look in the mirror please, if throwing around that sort of accusation.
If some would just be honest here, it would be quite simple. Instead they prefer to question what I post, so I reply of course. Then they get stroppy and start trying to change the topic. I was quite happy to simply post my point about this game, it's stuctures, features, variance, rake, but if I get asked repeatedly to support that, then I reply of course.
Comments
You specifically wrote 99%.
I asked you to explain how you arrived at 99%, because, in my view, it was a pure guess.
Had you have written "many" I would not have disputed it. You wrote an exact number -99%. That was fictitious, & wrong. "Many" would have been accurate.
That's my bit for today, I'm off to Wembley to watch the Miami Dolphins play the Pennsylvania Porpoises, or somesuch.
Have a thoroughly lovely day.